[rubergly]

More realistically, Visa was probably hoping that many consumers would, like the author, already have the option of and be forced into using their Visa card.

I agree that this seems, in addition to being extremely frustrating to almost all consumers, a silly marketing move, but I'm sure that Visa has run the numbers and has a sound business reason for doing this. Since, judging by mthoms's post, this seems to be a tradition at Olympics, my reasoning may be off, but I imagine that forcing all vendors to only accept Visa must cost a lot more than a sponsorship without that condition—and I really think that they wouldn't blindly jump into that without a sound reason.

There's the obvious trade-off of how much extra money Visa makes from users who have multiple cards and are forced into using Visa where they wouldn't have otherwise vs. money lost from Visa-owners who who are pissed off. But there are probably much more subtle, long-term effects. Maybe 75% of consumers present have a Visa, and 50% of those Visa-owners feel entitled and empowered by having the ability to use their card while others are frustrated; and then there's the trade-off of the 'entitled' Visa-owning 37.5% of consumers spending more with their Visa cards over the following months/years vs. the money lost due to the 25% of consumers who didn't have a Visa at the olympics and possibly hold a grudge and never own a Visa card because of the experience. Not to mention the fact that a similar sponsorship would likely be arranged if Visa decided not to do it; for all we know, MasterCard had a clear business incentive to do this but refrained because of moral reasons, but are we (consumers as a whole) discussing how valiant MasterCard is and how much they respect us as consumers or have we all forgotten a little bit about MasterCard because everyone's talking about Visa?

Again, I don't agree with this idea; I think it's bad and annoying. But I think it's silly and a bit ignorant for all of us (many of whom have no marketing experience, and most of whom don't on this scale) to assume we know more than the marketers making these decisions because we're annoyed.

[andrewfelix]

>but I'm sure that Visa has run the numbers and has a sound business reason for doing this.

As someone who worked for an advertising Agency with a big bank as a client, I think this is probably not the case. A marketing ploy usually starts with a reasonable idea and then slowly morphs into something horrible as it makes it's way through various departments; market research, legal, management etc.

This campaign probably started as something entirely different, was rejected by legal and then manipulated at the last minute by someone client side who realised they could force consumers to use their cards.

Some companies have tight, well researched, single minded marketing(eg. Nike). I don't think many banks do, and from what I've seen of Visa's marketing I doubt they do either.

[msellout]

As someone who gets paid to 'run the numbers,' I can tell you that many large businesses make their decisions based on internal bureaucratic politics rather than sound business reasons. The executive sponsoring of the analysis project can easily bully the analysts into agreeing or simply restrict information from them such that the available evidence matches the sponsor's opinion.

And sometimes there is simply no data. We can't estimate the value of a year of college to the average American. There are a vast number of variables involved in the flavor of Olympic sponsorship. There are a tiny number of observations. Sure, you could count other large events, but few if any are truly on the scale of the Olympics. And there will be differences according to the host city and the technology situation. The harder the problem is, the more your assumptions (or 'a priori knowledge' if you're confident) affect the answers. It's like Congress trying to estimate the effect of legislation on tax returns over the next 30 years.

[msellout]

I'm past my edit time limit, but I should add context to the assertion that we can't estimate the value of a year of college. There are some good methods for doing so, but none that stand out as the correct way. It's a classic hard problem in econometrics.

[omarrr]

A better marketing approach to this would have been to silently only accept VISA and never call attention to the fact that there is an arrangement behind the scenes.

Still pretty awful for your potential customers.

[sigkill]

"Sir, your card is being rejected. Do you have a VISA card that I can try? It seems for the past few days, those are the only ones that seem to work for anyone around here."

This would be a bit of scumbaggery but pure marketing genius I say.

[seunosewa]

... until the press finds out!

[sigkill]

Is there any technical barrier that prevents the swiping machine from accepting another card? If so, you could literally show them that "Look, it isn't working"

[rubberband]

I'm sure that Visa has run the numbers and has a sound business reason for doing this

There's also something to be said for this being a memorable experience for most consumers at the Olympics. I'm sure Visa damned well knows that a number of people will always remember using their Visa card at the Olympics.

[1337biz]

The other question is if this behavior is not in the end leading people to shift back to cash payments again. I never understood the popularity of offline credit card payments. In fact I never used my credit card for anything outside of online payments, except for one situation where I had to come up with a relatively large and time sensitive on-spot payment. This minor factor of not having to spend each week two minutes at an ATM seems almost ridiculous in contrast to the severe privacy issues ( http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120619/04094319383/data-m... ).

[kalleboo]

You buy laptops, TV, etc in cash?

As for that article, I don't need to worry about some "insurance company" caring about my diet since I'm not American. I'm quite sure european privacy laws also forbid sharing of my purchase history outside of the bank.

[1337biz]

So far almost all high priced item I bought were shipped from online stores. Plus most even offer in-store ATMs.

[neutronicus]

Your credit card always has exact change. If you lose your credit card, you don't lose any money. Errands suck.

Why not remove an errand and a hassle from your life?

[1337biz]

I actually like the payment process, i.e. handing something over and getting change back. I noticed, the easier the payment process is made (i.e. Amazon/Fiverrs one-click buys) the more I tend to buy things that would fall under the impulse buy category. If I see something in a store and don't have enough money on me, but have to go to the ATM first, I often do instead a more extensive product/price comparison online at home and quite a few times decided against buying anything at all ("do I REALLY need/use this?").